Lead Opinion
OPINION
After meeting with an officer from the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General, the parents of A.E.M. could not reach an agreement on all the terms for a child support and custody order. The only issue left unresolved was whether the child’s last name should be changed to his father’s last name. After a hearing, the trial court ordered the child’s surname to include his father’s surname. In three issues on appeal, the mother argues (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to order the child’s last name to be changed, (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the change of the child’s last name, and (3) the written judgment does not conform to the trial court’s orally rendered judgment.
We reverse and render.
Background
After A.E.M. was bom, his parents attended a negotiation conference with an officer from the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General. The parents reached agreement on most of the issues discussed, but could not reach an agreement on the last name of the child. The father wanted the child’s last name changed to his last name. The mother wanted the child to keep her last name. The Office of the Attorney General filed a petition for confirmation of a non-agreed order with the trial court.. The father filed a request for a hearing on the non-agreed issues. Specifically, the father requested the trial court to resolve his request to change the child’s name to his last name.
The trial court held a hearing. At the hearing, the father testified that he wanted to change the child’s name to his last name because he had a daughter who had his last name and he wanted them to have the same last name. The father explained that he had visitation rights with his daughter. The father and mother in this case had agreed that the father would also have visitation rights with A.E.M. The father testified that he also wanted the child to have his last name so there would be someone to carry on his family name and so that the child would have his name if the child entered the military. He acknowledged, however, that the child’s keeping his mother’s last name would not be detrimental to the child.
The mother testified that her last name held respect in the community because her father had run a business.for 33 years in the small town where she lived. She also testified that the father had indicated he was attending visitation periods only in an attempt to get their son’s last name changed to his and had told her at, one time, that he was willing to sign his parental rights away.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
In her first issue, the mother asserts that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to order the child’s last name to be changed.
The dispute over their child’s last name arose during meetings with the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General. Pursuant to Chapter 233 of the Texas Family Code, the Office of the Attorney General is authorized to attempt expedited administrative actions concerning child support and medical support obligations. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 233.001 (Vernon 2014) (explaining purpose of chapter is to authorize “Title IVD” agency to take expedited administrative actions concerning child support and medical support obligations); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 231.001 (Vernon 2014) (designating Office of the Attorney General as Title IV-D agency in Texas). If, as here, the parties cannot reach complete agreement in the administrative process, the Office of the Attorney General may file a petition for confirmation of a non-agreed child support order. Id. §§ 233.012(3), .020 (Vernon 2014). After the petition has been filed, certain strict deadlines apply before a hearing is held on the issues that remain outstanding. See id. §§ 233.023, .026 (Vernon 2014).
The thrust of the mother’s complaint is that the Office of the Attorney General lacked the authority to negotiate the last name of the child during the administrative process and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter in the subsequent hearing. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the last name of the child.
Generally, family courts in Texas have “the jurisdiction and power provided for district courts by the constitution and laws of this state.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.601(a) (Vernon 2004). Additionally, they have primary responsibility for cases involving family law matters. Id. § 24.601(b). The law on changing a child’s name is contained in the family code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann! §§ 45.001-.005 (Vernon 2014). Accordingly, it is undisputable that the family court generally had jurisdiction to determine the child’s last name.
The question we must address, then, is whether anything in Chapter 233 of the Family Code excluded the consideration of the child’s name from the trial court’s jurisdiction. We apply statutory construction principles in determining whether a statutory requirement is jurisdictional. City of DeSoto v. White,
The purpose of the administrative conference between the parties “is to provide an opportunity to reach an agreement on a child support order.” Id. § 233.012(1). The child support review order is meant to cover topics such as “current child support, medical support, a determination of any arrearages or retroactive support, and, if not otherwise ordered, income withhold-' tag.” Id. § 233.017(a).
However, if the parties do not agree on an order, the child support review order “may specify and reserve for the court at the confirmation hearing unresolved issues relating to conservatorship or possession of a child.” Id. § 233.017(d). At the hearing on the non-agreed order, “any issues in dispute shall be heard in a trial de novo.” Id. § 233.025(b).
Even if we concluded that the administrative conference can only cover matters relating to paternity determinations, child support obligations, and medical support obligations, the hearing before the trial court on the unresolved issues is intended to allow matters beyond those limitations, including conservatorship and possession of a child. See id. § 233.017(d). While it does not specifically include name changes as a matter that can be resolved by the trial court, the statute also does not exclude it. See id.; see also Crosstex Energy, 430 S.W.3d.at 392 (holding presence or absence of specific consequences for noncompliance is factor for determining whether statute is jurisdictional). Moreover, even if we interpreted these statutes to restrict the considerations to be taken by the trial court, nothing in the statutory framework suggests the limitations are jurisdictional. See White,
At best, the fact that changing a child’s name was not identified as a topic to be resolved in the Chapter 233 hearing before the trial court suggests that it was not generally intended to be resolved in the hearing. From there, there is no more than a weak inference to conclude that the legislature intended this to be a strict jurisdictional limitation. See Crosstex Energy,
Finally, we see no negative consequences that might arise from holding any limitations on the hearing are not jurisdictional. See id. (holding consequences that result from each possible interpretation is factor for determining whether statute is jurisdictional). Even if the name of the child is not generally intended to be part of the trial court’s hearing, any injured party can object to its inclusion. See id. at 391 (“A party may waive a mandatory, non-jurisdictional requirement by failing to timely object.”). Here, instead, the mother actively participated in presenting evidence on the matter. See Moore v. Altra Energy Technologies, Inc.,
In contrast, making the matter jurisdictional would open it to indefinite collateral attack and leading to uncertainty in matters that the parties actively presented to the trial court. See Crosstex Energy,
We hold there was no jurisdictional bar to the trial court’s determination of the child’s last name. We overrule the mother’s first issue.
Legal Sufficiency
In her second issue, the mother argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the change of the child’s last name.
A. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s ruling on a request to change the name of a child for an abuse of discretion. In re H.S.B.,
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for an-abuse-of-discretion review, the sufficiency ground is not an independent issue. See Moreno v. Perez,
A party challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence on an issue for which it did not carry the burden of proof will prevail if (1) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson,
B. Analysis
The father sought to change A.E.M.’s last name to his last name under authority of Chapter 45 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann.
The statutes permit a name change when it is “in the best interest of the child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 45.004(a)(1). Accordingly, the only facts relevant to our review of the trial court’s determination are the facts concerning the child’s best interest; the interests of the parents are not relevant. In re H.S.B.,
(1) the name that would best avoid anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, confusion, or disruption for the child, which may include consideration of parental misconduct and the degree of community respect (or disrespect) associated with the name,
(2) the name that would best help the child’s associational identity within a family unit, which may include whether a change in name would positively or negatively affect the bond between the child and either parent or the parents’ families,
(3) assurances by the parent whose surname the child will bear that the parent will not change his or her surname at a later time,
(4) the length of time the child has used one surname and the level of identity the child has with the surname,
(5) the child’s preference, along with the age and maturity of the child, and
(6) whether either parent is motivated by concerns other than the child’s best interest — for example, an attempt to alienate the child from the other parent.
Id.
For the first factor, there was little indication in the record that either parent’s name would avoid any embarrassment or disruption for the child or that there was a significant amount of respect or disrespect for either name in the community. The mother testified that her last name held respect in the community because her father had run a business for 33 years in the small town where she lived. The trial court could have discounted this testimony, however. See City of Keller,
The father argues that this factor weighs in his favor because if he “takes the child to the doctor, takes the child somewhere with his sister, or attends the child at school, it will be better for the child to be identified with [the father’s] last name.” The father overlooks the fact that the mother is the one with the greatest custodial possession of the child and, therefore, is the one who will most often take the child to the doctor, take the child out in public, and take the child to school. Based on the father’s argument, then, this factor weighs in favor of the mother. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the ruling, however, we will consider this factor to be neutral.
For the second factor, the father testified that he had a daughter and that he wanted them to get to know each other and have the same last name. In In re H.S.B., the court recognized that sharing a last name with a full or half-blood sibling was relevant to determining whether the last name should be changed.
In this case, in contrast, the father is not the custodial parent for A.E.M. or for his daughter. He only has periodic visitation rights for both, and there was no testimony concerning how much these visitation times would overlap. The father and mother in this case do not live in the same town or in surrounding towns, and there is no indication of where the father’s daughter lives. There is also no indication of the daughter’s age.
In short, there is little evidence that giving A.E.M. the same last name as his half-sister “would more strongly associate [him] with a family unit.” Id. Accordingly, while there is some evidence in the father’s favor for this factor, the overall significance of the evidence is slight.
The father testified that he also wanted the child to have his last name so there would be someone to carry on his family name and so that the child would have his name if he entered the military. The father did not explain, however, how it would be more beneficial to the child to have his last name instead of his mother’s last name in the event of entering the military or having children of his own. And the father’s personal desires to have his family name continued or be represented in the military are not relevant inquiries. See id. at 84 (rejecting factors that “inappropriately shift the inquiry to the parents’ interests”).
The dissent criticizes our resolution' of this factor, claiming we have “accepted] the mother’s reasoning and rejected] the father’s.” From this, the dissent characterizes our holding as an improper displacement of the trial court’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the testimony. This is not what we have done, however. It was within the trial court’s discretion to disbelieve the mother’s testimony concerning the child’s associational identity with the family unit. See Bush,
Instead, we have focused solely on the evidentiary significance of the father’s testimony. Because the father provided little to no information about the other sibling and the amount of time she could potentially spend with A.E.M. to develop any relationship, we have held that the testimony simply identifying another sibling who might occasionally see A.E.M. does not have strong evidentiary significance.
In contrast, the dissent would hold that the mere existence of another child bearing a parent’s last name would be enough to warrant requiring the child’s name to be changed. Such a holding stands in stark contrast to the long-standing “general rule ... that courts will exercise the power to change a child’s name reluctantly and only when the substantial welfare of the child requires it.” In re Guthrie,
For the third factor, neither parent testified about the possibility of changing their last name in the future. See id. This factor is neutral.
For the fourth and fifth factors, the child was nearly one-and-one-half years old at the time of the hearing. The child had no level of identity with the last name and had no ability to express a preference for his last name. See id. This factor is neutral.
For the final factor, there is little evidence to indicate that either parent was motivated by concerns other than the child’s best interest. The mother testified that the father had indicated he was only attending visitation periods in an attempt to get their son’s last name changed to his and had told her at one time that he was willing to sign his parental rights away. But the trial court could have discounted this testimony. See City of Keller,
In total, we have five neutral factors and one factor that slightly favors the father. “‘The power to change the name of a minor child is exercised reluctantly and only when necessitated by the substantial welfare of the child.’ ” In re H.S.B.,
We sustain the mother’s second issue.
Conclusion
We reverse the portion of the judgment changing the last name of A.E.M. and render a judgment that his last name remains the same.
Justice Bland, dissenting.
Notes
Because the mother’s third issue would not provide her with greater relief, we do not need to reach it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
Dissenting Opinion
Faced with a Solomonic choice, the trial court ordered a child’s name to include his father’s surname alongside his mother’s. The child’s mother argues, and the majority holds, that the evidence is insufficient to support its decision. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that fostering a sibling relationship merited a change in the child’s name and was in the child’s best interest, I respectfully dissent.
We review a trial court’s ruling to change a child’s name under an abuse of discretion standard. In re H.S.B.,
Section 45.004 provides that “[t]he court may change the name of a child if the change is in the best interest of the child.... ” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 45.004(a)(1) (West 2014). As the majority observes, this determination involves a number of factors. See also In re H.S.B.,
The majority acknowledges that including the father’s last name could more strongly associate the child with a family unit — in particular, his half-sibling. It concedes that the remaining factors are neutral in their factual basis, and depend heavily on credibility determinations of the testimony from the father and the mother. Both parents had reason and motive to urge their respective positions; the relative weight to accord their testimony on the highly subjective nature of the best interest in naming their child was uniquely within the trial court’s purview — it saw their demeanor and heard their words; we did not.
Leaving the parent’s testimony aside, the trial court heard one objective piece of evidence — that of a sibling relationship with another child — evidence that standing alone favors the trial court’s ruling. In In re H.S.B., our sister court reasoned that because the mother had another child, a shared last name between half-siblings would foster the sibling relationship. Id. at 86-87. In that ease, the father had no other children, and the court determined that the use of the mother’s surname would more strongly associate the child with a family unit of the sibling and parent. Id. at 87.
In this case, the parties contested the evidence of an association with a family unit. The child’s father has visitation both
The majority dismisses the notion of importance of the child’s sibling relationship with another child. But the trial court reasonably could have found that a shared surname with a half-sibling would further this sibling relationship. With objective evidence of a sibling relationship, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. Because the logical force of the testimony presented supports its decision, we should hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the addition of the father’s sur- • name to his child’s name. See Moreno v. Perez,
Oral Pronouncement
In her third issue, which the majority does not reach," the child’s mother argues that the trial court’s written judgment does not conform to its orally rendered judgment. In family law cases, a court renders judgment when it announces its decision, either in writing or orally in open court. Barton v. Gillespie,
At the hearing, the court orally pronounced a judgment “to add [the father’s last name] to the surname.” The final order states that “[t]he birth records ... shall be amended to show ... the child’s surname as [the father’s last name].” Because the oral pronouncement controls, we should sustain the mother’s objection to the written order and modify it to include the mother’s surname first, then the father’s surname. See Dunn,
Conclusion
Because the trial court acted within its discretion in resolving the parent’s dispute as to the naming of their child, we should affirm its ruling. As the majority instead overturns it, I respectfully dissent.